Writerbuckeye;605866 wrote:I doubt we'll see any camping (other than with tents). The macho atmosphere of the military will prevent it.

I suspect the major thing we won't see now (since it is repealed) is while many (most?) service members didn't give a crap about whether there was a gay person serving beside them...some probably were uncomfortable or took offense. Or an officer didn't like a particular enlisted man or woman. In both cases, if the gay member happened to say something that would reveal themselves, it allowed a path for them to be taken out of the military. That won't happen now.

And I have to believe repealing DADT will not mean the military goes back to simply not allowing gays to serve. What would have been the point of gays fighting this for so long. They want gay service members to be able to serve and feel comfortable in their own skins, and not have to walk on eggshells worrying about saying the wrong thing in front of the wrong person.

I agree. Yet another nuance to the repeal of DADT that needs to be considered.

believer;605868 wrote:
It's about the possible dilemma commanders may face to one degree or another the rights of soldiers who simply do not - for personal, religious, or whatever reason - want to be exposed to a soldier who is openly gay.

It doesn't matter if they feel uncomfortable! I love the bullshit you are spewing. In no way does it infringe upon the rights of the individual because they are in the presence of someone homosexual. You wouldn't say that the rights of an individual are being infringed upon because they are in the presence of a person that is of a different race or religion.

Now that Don't ask, Don't Tll has been repealed does the prior rule of homosexuals in the military apply or does the repealing legislation have language which permits openly homosexuals to serve in the armed forces?

Con_Alma;605897 wrote:Now that Don't ask, Don't Tll has been repealed does the prior rule of homosexuals in the military apply or does the repealing legislation have language which permits openly homosexuals to serve in the armed forces?

Gays can now serve openly, they can come out and say they are gay without being thrown out of the services.
It repeals the 1993 law, and eliminates all laws that would restrict gays servicing.

If I understand your explanation correctly the key action then is the repeal eliminates all laws restricting homosexuals from serving.

That's probably more important language than the DADT repeal.

Con_Alma;605907 wrote:If I understand your explanation correctly the key action then is the repeal eliminates all laws restricting homosexuals from serving.

That's probably more important language than the DADT repeal.

There are no laws against them serving, just opening serving. Now they can openly serve in the military and not worry about getting administratively separated for it.

Thinthickbigred;605847 wrote:I say empty death row empty all the pediphiles from jail all the major offenses triple crown winners and send them to Afghanistan.......empty all the prisons and give them weapons and just let em go ....

Why so? So they can cross enemy lines and join the enemy in their fight against us? That makes sense.

HeathAlum21;605890 wrote:It doesn't matter if they feel uncomfortable! I love the bullshit you are spewing. In no way does it infringe upon the rights of the individual because they are in the presence of someone homosexual. You wouldn't say that the rights of an individual are being infringed upon because they are in the presence of a person that is of a different race or religion.

You know I see your point. I think the military should drop the bullshit of separating males and females into different living quarters. Why should someone's gender have anything to do with how soldiers are quartered, right?

Bullshit or not you have to love the politically correct world we've built where we gleefully trample on the rights and beliefs of some to accommodate the sensitivities of others.

Thinthickbigred;605844 wrote:I thought there would be more far right wing republican nazi's on here ......I am waitiong for the hate mongering to come forth ....

You do know that a DEMOCRATIC President, instituted DADT, right? So I guess, Clinton hated gays?

believer;605914 wrote:You know I see your point. I think the military should drop the bullshit of separating males and females into different living quarters. Why should someone's gender have anything to do with how soldiers are quartered, right?

Bullshit or not you have to love the politically correct world we've built where we gleefully trample on the rights and beliefs of some to accommodate the sensitivities of others.

Uh I think they separate them because of things that "may" happen, rape, sex in places that shouldn't be happen like a ship. And you can't say they need to separate gays/straights for the same reason because if that was a problem it would have been happening by now.

Just like anything else that doesn't affect me at all, I don't care one way or the other.

I could care less, I'm not a homophobe! I don't care if they wanna get married either, to each their own.

believer;605914 wrote: Bullshit or not you have to love the politically correct world we've built where we gleefully trample on the rights and beliefs of some to accommodate the sensitivities of others.

No.No.No.No. In no way are the rights of any strait males being infringed upon by being with an openly gay soldier. If this was the case, there could be an infinite number of "legitimate reasons" as to characteristics or qualities that an individual doesn't like or approve of.

Let me ask you this. If a strait, ultra conservative male were sharing a bunk with a soldier that viewed pornography, are his rights being infringed upon because he personally does not agree with the viewing of pornography?

Ytowngirlinfla;605920 wrote:Uh I think they separate them because of things that "may" happen, rape, sex in places that shouldn't be happen like a ship.

Seems a bit prejudiced and stereotypical to make these assumptions about males don't you think? But I digress.

It's not about "things happening." Once again the point gets twisted into a subtle homophobia argument. Frustration.

My point has always been about trampling on another's beliefs whether you personally agree or disagree with those beliefs.

Question: Is it right to right a wrong with a wrong?

Today's generation as a whole is apparently more "accepting" of gays and homosexuals and that's fine. But that still ignores the fact that there are plenty of soldiers and sailors even now who, for personal or religious reasons, would rather not be associated with it. Why are the rights of those individuals - whether you view them as narrow-minded, bigoted, or homophobic or not - ignored in this issue?

And this issue will, one way or another, surface for military commanders. You can count on it.

HeathAlum21;605941 wrote:No.No.No.No. In no way are the rights of any strait males being infringed upon by being with an openly gay soldier. If this was the case, there could be an infinite number of "legitimate reasons" as to characteristics or qualities that an individual doesn't like or approve of.

Let me ask you this. If a strait, ultra conservative male were sharing a bunk with a soldier that viewed pornography, are his rights being infringed upon because he personally does not agree with the viewing of pornography?

See rebuttal above. By the way there is a difference between strait males and straight males. I kid.

believer;605955 wrote:See rebuttal above. By the way there is a difference between strait males and straight males. I kid.

I was referring to males that enjoy frequenting those bodies of water. My grammar suffers when I get fired up.

Parting observation:

Gays & lesbians openly confessing their gayness to military commanders has clearly been a controversial topic or DADT would never have been an issue.

That being said it's interesting to note that the Dems, who have for the past few years enjoyed near Super Majority status in DC, decided to act on this topic after they had their collective asses handed to them last month and before a certainly more conservative one takes it place in a few days.

The cowards in this particular Congress have chosen DADT as a last minute in-your-face gesture of defiance. They've elected to flip the bird at military commanders as they scurry like cockroaches caught in the light back to their respective dens.

If they had acted on this a couple of years ago, there would have been political consequences to pay. Fortunately they gave us other reasons to send them packing.

The most disturbing thing about that video is the guy's laugh. Sounds like the next thing he's going to do is order liver with some fava beans and a little Chianti.

Glory Days, as a liberal, I see what you are saying.

a man and a woman bunking together has the ingredients for something to happen, which is why they can't bunk together

a straight man/woman and a gay man/woman, we would ASSUME that the ingredients would NOT be there for something to happen.

a gay man/woman and another gay man/women bunking together again has the ingredients for something to happen. Now man/woman A might say that man/woman B isn't their type or whatever, but the same could be said for a straight man and a straight woman. I am not attracted to every female I see, I have a specific type.

If you are going to ASSUME that every straight man and woman will have sex with each other in the military, then you have to assume that every gay man/woman will as well. It's the same thing.

Also, with believer's entire argument, you have to start with your views on homosexuality. If you believe that homosexuality is a choice, then believer has a point.
Example 1: "I don't want to bunk with him because he looks at pornography, and I find that immoral." The person looking at the porn is choosing to do so, so you want to move because of it. You could say the same thing like "I don't want to bunk with a smoker."

Example 2: "I don't want to bunk with him because he is gay, and I find that immoral." If you believe that gay is a choice, then you have a point. This person's personal choices are radically altering my comfortablness in living.

It's kind of like the smoking ban. Smokers were choosing to smoke. Their rights were infringing on non-smokers' rights to breathe clean air in a restaurant, bar, hotel lounge.... If you view homosexuality as a choice, then I can understand how your rights are being infringed upon.

On the flip side of the coin. If you believe that homosexuality is a chemical make up much like eye color hair color...., then there is no argument for your rights being infringed upon.
Example 1: "I don't want to bunk with him because he's black." This would never fly in the military today.

Example 2: "I don't want to bunk with him because he's gay." Well, if being gay is viewed the same as being black (you're born that way; i.e. there is nothing wrong with it), then there is no justification for an argument other than something is wrong with your views internally.

I didn't put it in here, but I would view religion as a choice. I am a baptist, and I would probably feel uncomfortable with someone who practiced islam very closely. For example, when they have their prayer time every afternoon towards Mecca, am I supposed to stay quiet, so he can worship, or can I watch tv because it's my free time too? If you bunked with someone who had a different religion than you do (a different choice), then I would not have a problem with someone requesting a transfer because it's going to change the way I/we live together.

It all comes down to how you view things. Do you think homosexuality is a life choice or a genetic characteristic?

coyotes22;605915 wrote:You do know that a DEMOCRATIC President, instituted DADT, right? So I guess, Clinton hated gays?

Clinton, love him or hate him, was and is the consummate politician....he's in it for his own political survival. He knew that DADT was probably the best possible "solution" under a very controversial situation.

ccrunner609;605963 wrote:[video=youtube;kqaEFWtKMeg][/video]

Must be their way of showing acceptance of DADT. This clearly shows that DADT will work. Nothing to for commanders to be concerned about. I was wrong.

I'll be honest here.

I respect gay men who serve in our armed forces. But why do gay men expect fellow soldiers to accept them solely based that they are gay men. Comrades should accept a gay man if he over time has demonstrated that he is dependable, reliable, physically and mentally strong and a strong asset to a team. I think its very narrow minded by gay activists that believe that gay men should be differentiated amongst other men in an armed forces environment. They are soldiers first while on the front line, not gay men. That's why I feel sexual identity should not be wide open for everyone to know. If a soldiers gay, so be it, but if being a gay man gets in the way of performing your duties as a soldier and affects other soldiers lives, then you have no place in the military.

Thinthickbigred;605843 wrote:LOL I like the honesty .... I know fighting for our corrupt office holders is a strain but i would fight along side my countrymen if I had too even though I may not agree with my corrupt government.....

1st of all *to (Sorry had to be a dick for second)

If I had to, I would as well. Right now, people are choosing to go into the military. If you are choosing to do that, then I say bravo. I choose not to enter the military. If this were WWII or something like that, it would be a different story.

Glory Days;605645 wrote:You are trying to make it simplier than it is, but it clearly isn't since DADT won't be repealed until a new policy is set by the military by the sec def, joint chiefs, and obama.

If code of conduct takes care of everything, why can't a male and female live together if they aren't having sex? You think physical gender is the only reason? Ha, that's funny.

What about when a gay soldier is counseling another gay soldier? will a third party have to be present like when a straight male is counseling a straight female or vice versa?

I think third parties are involved with counseling between a male and female because a male can overpower a female and sexual assault is very high in the military. Also, the UCMJ is very outdated, some things in there have not been updated in well over a century and a half.

I Wear Pants;605684 wrote:So you want people to have to declare whether they are gay?

Do ask, do tell.

believer;605914 wrote:You know I see your point. I think the military should drop the bullshit of separating males and females into different living quarters. Why should someone's gender have anything to do with how soldiers are quartered, right?

Bullshit or not you have to love the politically correct world we've built where we gleefully trample on the rights and beliefs of some to accommodate the sensitivities of others.

Really? How are we not trampling on the rights of homosexuals when we don't allow them to live their life openly and honestly? You know, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is funny that conservatives claim to be all about people's individual liberties, then yet omit certain groups they don't agree with from that liberty.

believer;605953 wrote:Seems a bit prejudiced and stereotypical to make these assumptions about males don't you think? But I digress.

It's not about "things happening." Once again the point gets twisted into a subtle homophobia argument. Frustration.

My point has always been about trampling on another's beliefs whether you personally agree or disagree with those beliefs.

Question: Is it right to right a wrong with a wrong?

Today's generation as a whole is apparently more "accepting" of gays and homosexuals and that's fine. But that still ignores the fact that there are plenty of soldiers and sailors even now who, for personal or religious reasons, would rather not be associated with it. Why are the rights of those individuals - whether you view them as narrow-minded, bigoted, or homophobic or not - ignored in this issue?

And this issue will, one way or another, surface for military commanders. You can count on it.

So what if someone is jewish and they don't believe Jesus is the son of god, messiah, etc.? They shouldn't be able to serve, using your logic, because it undermines christian members beliefs. They aren't comfortable with that, right?

In the United States, we are supposedly a tolerant and accepting nation. This extends to the military. Someone being gay doesn't infringe on someone else's rights just because they don't agree with it. That'd be like me saying you are infringing on my rights because we don't agree on an issue or you do something that I don't think is moral. As long as you aren't hurting me, what is the problem?

Crew, I like what you said in each point.

My question to you is, how do you multiple post like that amongst several different posters?